Paul H Hirst; Forms of Knowledge—A reply to Elizabeth Hindess, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 7, Issue 2, 30 May 2006, Pages 260–271, https://doi.or.

Philosophy and curriculum planning.--The nature and structure of curriculum objectives.--Liberal education and the nature of knowledge.--Realms of meaning and forms of knowledge.--Language and thought.--The forms of knowledge re-visited.--What is teaching?--The logical and psychological aspects of teaching a subject.--Curriculum integration.--Literature and the fine arts as a unique form of knowledge.--The two-cultures, science and moral education.--Morals, religion and the maintained school.

In his classic discussion of liberal education and the nature of knowledge, Professor Hirst argues for a liberal education which is “directly concerned with the development of mind and rational knowledge.”1He sets out clear conditions which any activity must satisfy if it is to be a form of knowledge and suggests that there are seven distinct forms which satisfy these conditions:“mathematics, physical sciences, human sciences, history, religion, literature and the fine arts, philosophy”2The first argument of (...) this paper is that literary criticism exhibits all the features which Hirst demands of a form of knowledge. Second, it is argued that ‘literature’ does not exhibit the characteristics of a form of knowledge. The third argument is that Hirst's acceptance of ‘literature and the fine arts’ as a ‘form of knowledge’ reflects a fundamental deficiency in his list of the distinguishing features of a ‘form of knowledge’, which is that he omits any explicit reference to the necessity for a form of knowledge to exhibit criteria for distinguishing truth from falsity within its domain. (shrink)

In his classic discussion of liberal education and the nature of knowledge, Professor Hirst argues for a liberal education which is “directly concerned with the development of mind and rational knowledge.”1He sets out clear conditions which any activity must satisfy if it is to be a form of knowledge and suggests that there are seven distinct forms which satisfy these conditions:“mathematics, physical sciences, human sciences, history, religion, literature and the fine arts, philosophy”2The first argument of (...) this paper is that literary criticism exhibits all the features which Hirst demands of a form of knowledge. Second, it is argued that ‘literature’ does not exhibit the characteristics of a form of knowledge. The third argument is that Hirst's acceptance of ‘literature and the fine arts’ as a ‘form of knowledge’ reflects a fundamental deficiency in his list of the distinguishing features of a ‘form of knowledge’, which is that he omits any explicit reference to the necessity for a form of knowledge to exhibit criteria for distinguishing truth from falsity within its domain. (shrink)

Paul Hirst's 'forms of knowledge' thesis has been the subject of much discussion and debate in educational circles. Hirst's claim that such forms exist is not original but, as R. S. Peters claimed, his account is distinctive in its application to the school curriculum. This paper calls for a revision of Peters's claim on the grounds that R. G. Collingwood's writings on the forms of experience not only refer to the school curriculum, but also (...) point up an explicitly educational agenda. (shrink)

It is often taken for granted that Paul Hirst’s switch from emphasis on liberal education to a social practices view of education is a radical one. This depends on how we understand the relation between the two views. From the perspective of a ‘weak’ interpretation I argue that Hirst’s later position differs little from his earlier one in the light both of the relation between the forms of knowledge and social practices, and of the rationalistic character (...) of Hirst’s conception of social practices in their connection with education. (shrink)

It is often taken for granted that Paul Hirst’s switch from emphasis on liberal education to a social practices view of education is a radical one. This depends on how we understand the relation between the two views. From the perspective of a ‘weak’ interpretation I argue that Hirst’s later position differs little from his earlier one in the light both of the relation between the forms of knowledge and social practices, and of the rationalistic character (...) of Hirst’s conception of social practices in their connection with education. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Notes References.

In this paper I individuate and analyse a new type of epistemic injustice that can arise in education and depends on the so-called ‘backtracking fallacy’ in student assessment, which occurs when a teacher confuses (or does not distinguish between) the logical dimension of a framework of disciplinary concepts and its psychological dimension. I will also touch upon a different type of social injustice that might transpire in education. I suggest that familiarity with Paul Hirst's view of liberal education, which (...) presupposes a neat distinction between a public framework of knowledge and the psychological process of gradually learning it, can contribute to prevent or reduce both forms of injustice. (shrink)

Paul Hirst’s philosophical ‘conversion’ from forms of knowledge to forms of social practices was largely prompted by his radical reappraisal of the philosophical underpinnings that had validated his classic conception of liberal education. The primary motivation for Hirst’s later works was to remedy his own neglect of practical reason, whose sharp distinction from theoretical reason he acknowledged he had failed to appreciate. There is much to commend in his ‘practical’ turn. The main challenge that remains, (...) however, is that the social practices view is something of a ‘foundationalist’ two-part picture, where overwhelming priority is given to practical reason. I appreciate the importance of the two issues Hirst puts on the table, in his debate with Wilfred Carr particularly and in his later works more generally: the issues of cultivating phronesis and of making sense of the practical character of critical-reflective activities. But I argue that addressing these issues fully requires us to recognize that neither theoretical nor practical rationality can be intelligible apart from the other. To press the point home, I review the analogous debate between Hubert Dreyfus and John McDowell over whether to accept, and how to understand, the view that rational conceptuality in a relevant sense pervades not only deliberation and propositional thinking but also perception and embodied coping skills. I conclude by briefly considering the prospect that the legacy of Hirst and recent discussions around human nature, practical rationality, and the formation of reason will interactively enrich our philosophical-educational scholarship. (shrink)

Paul Hirst’s reconceptualization of his epistemology provides a basis for this exploration of the various aspects of the rationale for teaching literature. The article reflects the close analysis of knowledge and the curriculum in his early work and develops insights in his later work. This leads to the identification of five strands that form the rationale for the role of literature within the curriculum. The first strand refers to the knowledge of context, cultural background, or information necessary (...) to engage with many works of literature. The second strand concerns the role of literature in providing pleasure. The third strand considers the role of literature in offering multiple forms of understanding and insight. Strands four and five address the place of literature in the educational context. The fourth strand refers to the possibilities offered for education in language by the close study of literary texts. The fifth strand concerns the honing of the ability to propose and defend arguments in the interpretation of texts as a conduit to the development of one aspect of practical reason. (shrink)

In the 1990s P.H. Hirst criticizes his influential forms of knowledge theory, suggesting a new concept of education. In this paper I explain why Hirst suggests the new concept of ‘education as initiation into practices’. Although the latter Hirst’s position had positive implications on education, it is frequently confused with theutilitarian position. In order to provide a more coherent concept of education, I compare basic features of the rationalist (R), the utilitarian (U), and the practices-based (...) (P) approach. Then I discuss the implications of this concept. The main features of R, U, and P are respectively as this: 1) A person is seen as a rational being, a being of wants and desires, and a rational practitioner who is socially constructed. 2) The nature of reason is conceived as ‘rational’,‘instrumental’, and ‘practical’. 3) The aim of education is education for theoretical rationality, education for maximum satisfaction of desires, and education for identity formation by participating in practices. 4) The contents of education are theoretical knowledge, instrumental knowledge with utility, and practical knowledge for various practices. 5) R pursues absolute transcendental values, U pursues extrinsic instrumental values, and P pursues values internal to a practice. 6) R conceives education as ‘seeing’, U as ‘doing’, and I suggest ‘listening’ model for P. Based on this conception of practices-based position, I hope we can provide better education. (shrink)

This article initially provides a brief overview of virtue epistemology; it thereafter considers some possible ramifications of this branch of the theory of knowledge for the philosophy of education. The main features of three different manifestations of virtue epistemology are first explained. Importantly, it is then maintained that developments in virtue epistemology may offer the resources to critique aspects of the debate between Hirst and Carr about how the philosophy of education ought to be carried out and by (...) whom. Wilfred Carr's position—that educational practitioners have privileged access to philosophical knowledge about teaching practice—will in particular be questioned. It will be argued that Carr's view rests on a form of epistemology, internalism, which places unreasonably narrow restrictions upon the range of actors and ways, in which philosophical knowledge of and/or for education might be achieved. In declaring that practical wisdom regarding teaching is ‘entirely dependent’ on practitioner reflection, Carr not only radically deviates from Aristotle's notion of practical wisdom, he also, in effect, renders redundant all philosophical research about education that is not initiated by teachers in this manner. It is concluded that Aristotle's general approach to acquiring information and knowledge about the world might yet still offer a foundation for a more comprehensive philosophy of education; one that makes clear that the professional testimony and reflection of teachers, observation of teaching practice, and already existing educational philosophy, theory and policy can all be perceived as potentially valuable sources of philosophical knowledge of and for education. (shrink)

Dewey continues to offer arguments that remain powerful on the need to break down the divisions between ‘academic’ and ‘vocational’ in terms of his specific theory of knowledge. Dewey's writings are used to argue that a democratic curriculum needs to challenge such divisions to encompass the many forms of knowledge necessary in the contemporary classroom. Gandin and Apple's investigation of community participation (Orçamento Participativo or Participatory Budgeting) in the curriculum of the Citizen School in Porto Alegre, Brazil, (...) will be explored as an example of democratic structures informing educational planning. The work of Paul Hirst, Atli Harđarson and Chris Jane Brough is analysed regarding the issue of curriculum aims and student negotiation. Dewey's emphasis on learning as a collective enterprise will resonate here. Brough offers innovative research on student-centred curriculum integration that suggests even very young children are able to participate in debate over their own learning. Hirst and Harđarson provide contrasting views on the issue of curriculum aims—Hirst arguing that a curriculum cannot exist without definable aims while Harđarson challenges the very notion of settled aims if students are to be reflexive regarding their education. The article also refers to the work of Alexander on the use of dialogic questioning in the classroom. Such questioning, it is suggested, enhances and encourages collaborative forms of enquiry necessary for a democratic curriculum through discussion between teachers, students and other stakeholders. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Decolonizing MemoryLaurence J. Kirmayer*, MD (bio)In this far-reaching essay, Emily Walsh explores the significance of memory for coming to grips with the enduring legacy of colonialism in psychiatry. She argues that "for reasons of self-preservation, racialized individuals should reject collective memories underwritten by colonialism." Psychiatry can enable this process or collude with the structures of domination to silence and disable those who bear the brunt of the colonialist history (...) of violence and its current global incarnations. In this brief commentary, I want to underscore the importance of Walsh's argument, link it to contemporary work in cognitive and social science on the dynamics of memory, and point to some resources for implementing these insights in health services and clinical practice.Memory as Psychological Process, Social Practice and Cultural InstitutionMemory is not simply an individual psychological process of accessing images, stories, and knowledge of the past, but a reconstructive process of building a narrative (Kirmayer, 1996). This narrative is profoundly shaped by available templates, metaphors and models that are provided by the tacit, normative and official histories of society (Hirst, Yamashiro & Coman, 2018). But memory is also shaped by cultural affordances that guide attention and by narrative practices, which depend on other people (Ramstead, Veissière, & Kirmayer, 2017). In effect, remembering is not a matter of reaching down into one's memory archive or sedimented experience, but an embodied and enactive process of thinking with and through others (Laanes & Meretoja, 2021; Veissière, Constant, Ramstead, Friston, & Kirmayer, 2020). Memory then depends on community and on a shared understanding of history and of possible futures through which one can anchor and elaborate one's individual story.A direct consequence is that disconnecting a person from others, disembedding them from their social milieu, will lead to disruptions in memory and in the continuity of self. When the environment is toxic, this severance may sometimes be (partly) beneficial—but it always comes at a cost. Figuring out those costs, making them explicit, and ensuring that those whose history is being suppressed or overwritten by others have a chance to reclaim and write their own, is an ethical and pragmatic imperative.The denial of vital memories (recent or remote, personal or collective) causes fractures in the self that may disorganize the individual, install false consciousness, and cement the exclusionary and disvalued position of colonized, racialized, and [End Page 243] marginalized subjects. This process is not only—or even primarily—about memory. It is part of the structure of everyday life, inscribed in institutions and practices where colonial histories, racism, and economic exploitation are deeply entangled. Representations of the past are part of the way we construe the present and anticipate the future—but not every interpretive frame is a memory; there are structures in and of the moment that condition how we think about ourselves in health and illness and these too convey interests and biases disguised as "just the way things are."Fanon's Politics of Postcolonial Memory and IdentityWalsh offers a reading of aspects of Fanon's philosophy to reveal the workings of colonialism in and through memory. She is concerned with specific subsets of collective memories that are affectively charged and related to the identity of a group (Wertsch & Roediger, 2008). These memories are collective not simply they are shared by or distributed among the members of a group but because they define or constitute the collective itself.History is written largely by the powerful who create dominant or 'master' narratives that serve their own projects of legitimation and self-mystification (Trouillot, 2015; Lindqvist, 2021). But the creation of dominant narratives is not solely the province of those in power. There are many kinds of self-serving collective memory (Baumeister & Hastings, 2013)—from those related to the creation of nation states, which may ignore not only colonized peoples, but all ethnicities, religions or linguistic groups subordinated to the ideals of the dominant group (Anderson, 2006; Gunew, 2013; van Alphen & Carretero, 2015), to other forms of collective identity, even to those created by liberatory movements. These are maintained by institutionalization, ceremonial repetition and reenactment... (shrink)